JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The State of Himachal Pradesh, becomes aggrieved from the order acquittal rendered by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., upon, criminal case No. 83/2 of 2008. The afore verdict of acquittal became rendered, upon, charges drawn against the accused under Sections, 279, 337, and, under Section 338 of the IPC, and, under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The victim, PW-1, one Geeta Chauhan, in sequel to the purported rash, and, negligent manner of driving of the offending vehicle by the accused/respondent, suffered injuries on her person. The relevant injuries are embodied in the apposite MLC, whereto exhibit mark Ex.PW7/A becomes assigned. PW-7 has proven Ex.PW7/A. 3. The relevant accident, involving the offending vehicle, as, driven at the relevant time, by the accused/respondent, occurred at the site, as, enumerated in the site plan, borne in Ex.PW8/D. A perusal of the site plan, underscores that the injured/victim, had at the relevant time, entered upon the road concerned. Obviously when the road concerned was not amenable for being entered, upon, by those intending to trudge thereon, and, rather was only meant for plying(s) of vehicles thereon. Be that as it may, even though, if the victim/injured, had endeavoured to trudge, upon, the road, rather only meant for plying(s) thereon of vehicles, yet the respondent/accused while driving the offending vehicle was bound to ensure that the victim remains unharmed from a collision being made against her person, hence, by the vehicle driven at the relevant time by him. Moreover, if the evidence on record, underscores that there was an immense rush of traffic, at the relevant time, at the site of occurrence, thereupon, it was also incumbent, upon, PW-1 to adhere to the standards of due care, and, caution, inasmuch, as, hers taking to trudge on the road, hence meant only for plying(s) thereons of vehicles, only after, the road being free from any traffic hazards. 4. In adjudging the afore facet, of the respective duties of due care, and, caution enjoined,both, upon the respondent/accused, and, upon, the victim/injured, an allusion to the testification occurring in the cross-examination of PW-1, is imperative. 4. In adjudging the afore facet, of the respective duties of due care, and, caution enjoined,both, upon the respondent/accused, and, upon, the victim/injured, an allusion to the testification occurring in the cross-examination of PW-1, is imperative. She therein makes explicit echoings that at the relevant time, there was an immense rush of traffic at the site of occurrence, and, thereupon, it became incumbent rather upon, the victim/injured to ensure, that, at the relevant time, the road is free from any traffic hazards, as, only, thereupon she would be inferred qua hers adhering to the standards of due care, and, caution. Contrarily, the victim/injured, as, evident from the afore disclosure, occurring in her cross-examination, did not mete adherence to the standards of due care, and, caution, inasmuch, as, despite a rush of traffic, at the relevant site, she proceeded to trudge on the metalled road. 5. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court, has appraised the entire evidence, on record, in a wholesome and harmonious manner, apart therefrom, the analysis of the material, on record, by the learned trial court, hence, also not suffering from any gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation, and, non appreciation of germane thereto evidence, on record. 6. Consequently, there is no merit in the extant appeal, and, it is dismissed accordingly. The judgment impugned before this Court is affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.